MEASUREMENT OF ODOUR EMISSIONS FROM HOG OPERATIONS IN MANITOBA Final Report Submitted to Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative Inc. and Triple S Hog Manure Management Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Odour emissions were measured on ten (10) hog farms in Manitoba in 1999 and 2000. Five of the ten farms were farrow-to-finish operations (size ranging from 130 to 800 sows), two nursery operations (5,000 and 10,000 hogs), two farrow-nursery operations (2,500 and 3,000 sows), and one grow/finish operation (4,000 hogs). Seven of the ten operations included in this study were less than 5 years old, and the other three were 10, 35 and 40 years old, respectively. On each selected farms, odour samples were taken from (i) barn exhaust, (ii) manure storage, and (iii) downwind (50 m to 3.5 km). A flux hood was used to collect odour samples from land application of manure on three farms. Odour levels (concentrations) of collected samples were determined by using a dynamic-dilution olfactometer with six screened human assessors. A Jerome was used to measure hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels of odour samples taken from six farms in 2000. Farm-average odour levels from barn exhaust ranged from 131 to 1842 OU on ten farms. The farms could be divided into three groups according to their odour levels: four in a low odour level group (131 to 252 OU), four in a medium level group (641 to 750 OU), and two in a high level group (1765 to 1842 OU). No apparent correlations were found between the odour level
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".